Providing LE With Identification

[tanksoldier]

It depends on a lot of information we don't know. How many burglaries have been committed on that block, in that particular neighborhood. Drug use in the area, was there a known drug house across the street from where your friend was parked. You see how many things can lead to an officer requesting your friends identification?

The question revolves around "identifying himself" vs "providing identification".

Unless you're operating a motor vehicle you aren't required to provide identification, ie: a driver's license, only to identify yourself, ie: give the officer your name.

I don't know the details of California law but I would assume that if you're sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle you can be assumed to have driven or be about to drive it and asked for your license.

Many officers ask for identifying documents even in cases where the individual isn't required to provide them, knowing that most will comply anyway our of fear, ignorance or a desire to be cooperative... and if the individual provides it voluntarily there's no harm in the officer asking.

[RedVines]

The question revolves around "identifying himself" vs "providing identification".

Unless you're operating a motor vehicle you aren't required to provide identification, ie: a driver's license, only to identify yourself, ie: give the officer your name

You are half right, half wrong. True, you are required to provide your CA driver's license upon demand to a CA peace officer if you're operating a motor vehicle as this is codified into the California vehicle code.

However, this doesn't mean that you don't have to provide ID when asked to by a police officer who is legally detaining you while conducting a investigation, as doing so may constitute delaying a peace officer which is a misdemeanor in California. I am not aware of any case law that draws a distinction between "identifying himself" vs "providing identification". But in this day and age of identity theft, asking to see ID to confirm someone's identity seems completely reasonable and thus an officer would be we'll within his rights to ask for it and not take someone's word for it.

[RickD427]

All of the discussion in this thread is good, but sometimes, it's really necessary to go back and give some attention to the "rules" already in place governing the subject.

Here's a couple of court rulings on the issue:

People v Loudermilk (189 Cal. App. 3d 77) - Officer had the right to demand ID during a detention and acted reasonably in searching the defendant's wallet for it when refused.

People v. Quiroga (16 Cal App. 4th) - A refusal to provide ID during booking was a violation of Penal Code section 148. Central to the court's ruling was the defendant had a duty to provide the ID for booking. The court's reasoning doesn't appear to apply to a field contact.

In re Gregrory S (112 Cal. App. 3d 764) - This case is a good complement to Quiroga. It held that defendant did not have a duty to provide ID during a field contact.

Lawson v. Kolender (658 F. 2d 1362) - Ruled California's law requiring persons to present ID as being unconstitutional.

[Steveo8]

So based on RickD427s post and what I have learned in the 5 years on the forum, you can refuse to provide ID however you cannot refuse to ID yourself. In California I do not believe that there is any law that requires that an individual to carry any type of ID.



ETA: This does not include a DL as that is required by law. Also I am not a LEO.

[IA300]

So based on RickD427s post and what I have learned in the 5 years on the forum, you can refuse to provide ID however you cannot refuse to ID yourself. In California I do not believe that there is any law that requires that an individual to carry any type of ID.

Again, it depends. Are you being detained on reasonable suspicion or is this a consensual encounter, are you aware of what the LEO is thinking? Do you know if someone called in a suspicious person, etc.?
Let's say I stop you for a VC violation and you do not have your ID/DL and you refuse to verbally identify yourself. VC40302 allows me to take you directly before a judge, unless it's night time, then you would get booked. This also applies to refusal to sign the citation.

[RedVines]

All of the discussion in this thread is good, but sometimes, it's really necessary to go back and give some attention to the "rules" already in place governing the subject.

Here's a couple of court rulings on the issue:

People v Loudermilk (189 Cal. App. 3d 77) - Officer had the right to demand ID during a detention and acted reasonably in searching the defendant's wallet for it when refused.

People v. Quiroga (16 Cal App. 4th) - A refusal to provide ID during booking was a violation of Penal Code section 148. Central to the court's ruling was the defendant had a duty to provide the ID for booking. The court's reasoning doesn't appear to apply to a field contact.

In re Gregrory S (112 Cal. App. 3d 764) - This case is a good complement to Quiroga. It held that defendant did not have a duty to provide ID during a field contact.

Lawson v. Kolender (658 F. 2d 1362) - Ruled California's law requiring persons to present ID as being unconstitutional.

Great stuff. Thanks for posting. If I may comment on In re Gregory S, as I feel like the synopsis you provided is a little misleading.

Some back story on the case. A neighbor calls the police about the next door neighbor's 15 year old son (i'll refer to him as the suspect) threw someone at his window (or something of that malicious mischief nature). Deputy arrives and is familiar with the caller as well as the suspect due to prior contacts. The deputy also knew the suspect's last name. It was suggested in that the caller may crazy and has called on his neighbor's son before. The prior contacts with police has made the suspect and his family hostile to the police.

The deputy arrives and speaks with the caller, then he returns to his patrol car. Since he decided that he would not take any police action based upon the caller's statement, he decided that he would call the suspect's parents just to speak to them about the situation, thus avoiding a hostile face to face confrontation.

As he was sitting in his car he saw who he believes is the suspect walking across his front yard towards his house. Seeing the suspect, the deputy gets out of his car, tells the suspect to come over to him and asked for his name. Suspect refuses, says i dont have to talk to you and starts walking away. Deputy walks, grabs him and the suspect tries to pull away. Struggle ensues and the officers take the suspect into custody for resisting, delaying and obstructing a peace officer 148(a)(1)PC.

The court ruled that under the circumstances in this case the suspect's refusal to identify himself did not in and of itself constitute a violation of 148(a)(1) pc. A lower court ruled that the suspects refusal to ID himself was unreasonable and was a violation of 148(a)(1)pc. the court of appeals overruled this because they simply did not find any codified authority stating refusal to ID equals 148(a)(1) pc.

Here's the important part. The Court of Appeals held that once the deputy had the suspect detained, he had other reasonable means to identify the suspect, such as having the suspect's mother ID him, which the deputy actually did. It was held that since that deputy already knew the suspect's last name and address, the suspects refusal to ID himself in and of itself did not constitute a violation a 148(a)(1)PC because it was doubtful that not having the suspect ID himself would have caused a delay or obstruction in the officer's investigation given the circumstances.

I see a great difference between the circumstances in this scenario and most Terry stops where an officer has absolutely no knowledge of a person's identity. People don't have a duty to provide ID during a field contact, but they do have a duty not to delay or obstruct a peace officer. In the case of In re Gregory S, not providing ID did not constitute delaying or obstructing. It doesn't mean that it wouldn't constitute 148(a)(1)PC under different circumstances.

[cruising7388]

We have an unpopular job. People do not like us. Period. But we can't not do our jobs just because people will hate us for it.

Agreed. However, the secret to success in an unpopular job is to make it abundantly clear that you do it reluctantly.

[RedVines]

Agreed. However, the secret to success in an unpopular job is to make it abundantly clear that you do it reluctantly.

Wise words.

[cruising7388]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" 4th Amendment. Key word here is "unreasonable". If an officer forms reasonable suspicion to make contact with you in public, he/she has a legitimate law enforcement reason to contact.

You've stated the law here both accurately and succinctly. But you've quit after the easy part. The hard part is agreeing on what standard is appropriately applied to determining what constitutes a "reasonable" suspicion. Is it subjective or objective? Is a hunch good enough? A guess? A distant recollection? Does reasonable suspicion arise simply because someone vaguely fits a fleeting and hurried description provided by someone else? And in a close call, in our legal system, who should get the benefit of the doubt?

[Steveo8]

Again, it depends. Are you being detained on reasonable suspicion or is this a consensual encounter, are you aware of what the LEO is thinking? Do you know if someone called in a suspicious person, etc.?
Let's say I stop you for a VC violation and you do not have your ID/DL and you refuse to verbally identify yourself. VC40302 allows me to take you directly before a judge, unless it's night time, then you would get booked. This also applies to refusal to sign the citation.

Agreed, but again I don't believe that in California other then the VC there is any law stating that an individual has to carry an ID card. I think we are saying the same the as far as the reasonable suspicion/consensual encounter is concerned.

[Steveo8]

You've stated the law here both accurately and succinctly. But you've quit after the easy part. The hard part is agreeing on what standard is appropriately applied to determining what constitutes a "reasonable" suspicion. Is it subjective or objective? Is a hunch good enough? A guess? A distant recollection? Does reasonable suspicion arise simply because someone vaguely fits a fleeting and hurried description provided by someone else? And in a close call, in our legal system, who should get the benefit of the doubt?

IMO since our system is set up as innocent until proven guilty I would say the tie goes to suspect.

[cruising7388]

If I may, is there a particular reason you would be reluctant to provide a police officer with your ID? You worried about privacy? Or is it more of a "i just don't want to if i don't have to" type of thing.

Both.

[IA300]

Agreed, but again I don't believe that in California other then the VC there is any law stating that an individual has to carry an ID card. I think we are saying the same the as far as the reasonable suspicion/consensual encounter is concerned.

You are correct, I am not aware of anything codified that requires a person to carry a valid ID card.

"The hard part is agreeing on what standard is appropriately applied to determining what constitutes a "reasonable" suspicion. Is it subjective or objective? Is a hunch good enough? A guess? A distant recollection? Does reasonable suspicion arise simply because someone vaguely fits a fleeting and hurried description provided by someone else? And in a close call, in our legal system, who should get the benefit of the doubt?"

That is going to always be up to the courts to decide with the ever changing case law. There is no hard and fast definition that is black and white when it comes to reasonable suspicion. As others have posted, it lies in the ability of the LEO to articulate what, why, etc. That will vary by LEO, area in which they are assigned, experience, training, etc...And then that explanation is what the court will rule on.
And, for the record, I agree with Redvines, tie goes to the suspect.

[RickD427]

Agreed, but again I don't believe that in California other then the VC there is any law stating that an individual has to carry an ID card. I think we are saying the same the as far as the reasonable suspicion/consensual encounter is concerned.

Steveo8,

You're correct. California used to have Penal Code section 647(e) which required persons to present credible ID (effectively required them to carry a card) when demanded by a peace officer. The Kolender case cited above tested that law and it was found to be unconstitutional and that section went away. The Supreme Court, in a later case, ruled that states could maintain laws requiring persons to identify themselves to police officers (Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District), but California has not yet passed such a law. The difference between Kolender and Hiibel seems to be the requirement for a written form of ID.

[cruising7388]

Presumption of innocence is a legal concept that applies in criminal proceedings. It has nothing to do with field investigations. In fact, police officers don't make any presumptions in the field. That would get us killed.

To put it bluntly, a police officer who detains, questions and IDs a law abiding citizen does nothing to infringe upon that citizen's 4th amendment rights. There's nothing in the bill of rights that says citizens have the right not to be detained by the police unless they commit a crime. The citizen may not like it, which seems to be your case, but believe me there are no rights being violated. You seem to equate being asked for ID with being treated like a suspect. for a lack of better terms, that is your perception, an opinion, an emotion. We can't control how people perceive us and they way we do our jobs. We certainly should not change the way we do our jobs based that either.

You are also right in that cooperation is not in the best interest of the suspect, so when we encounter someone who doesn't want to cooperate with a simple request such as providing ID, all it does is add to our suspicion and make us intensify an investigation.

Without sounding disrespectful, you will never truly and fully understand police work, what's effective and what's not and how it's done, simply because you aren't a police officer. So trust me when I say this. Conducting terry stops on people, law abiding citizens included, is the bread and butter of good police work. The police officer that detains you and asks for your ID is doing nothing to infringe upon your rights, he is doing his job the way it's supposed to be done.

I'm mystified by your position that the modus operandi of detaining pedestrian citizens at your pleasure is legally suppportable. The decision in Terry did not grant LEOs unbridled discretion to detain and demand ID of such law abiding citizens. Yes, Terry did reduce the threshold for such stops from probable cause that a crime has been or is about to be committed to a reasonable suspicion but Terry specifically enunciated that in order to be reasonable, the suspicion can't be a conveniently manufactured hunch, but must be predicated on specific and articulable facts.